Honest John - Telegraph paper

peter_the_piper

buglawton wrote: »

I got my 1st parking ticket parking on a deep church verge at a wedding where there was a real shortage of parking. I arrived as there were about 40 cars already parked on this verge and found a slot. The warning notices were tiny and far from each other. The wardens waited till everyone had parked and gone into the church, then issued all the tickets. It's so easy to get a sense of injustice from theese events, isn't it?

Real council ones or confetti ones?

ripped_off_driver

murdomaguire wrote: »

Given the above of Mr Thomas being the only insured and the word from the local church that they had asked him not to park there on several occasions it seems reasonable that the judge would take the view that Mr Thomas was probably the driver and other matters - such as whether he had posted in forums or not - would add to, but not be crucial to Mr Justice Ackroyd taking that view.

FWIW I don't think the reporter was in court. Certainly the one I spoke to was not in court (and I don't suppose they put a team on it). It was off a press release from the parking company which is why we had to clarify the legal issues.

Perky has something on his website about the requirement for drivers to be insured and how this could be used against them in court. A load of rubbish as usual. It is about as big a nonsense as your suggestion that this issue of insurance cover was crucial to the decision in this case. The insurance issue you refer to is nowhere to be found in the genuine transcript of the judgement so you have been misadvised yet again my friend. The forum posting issue is all over the transcript but was removed by Perky in the doctored version he issued to hide the real reason the case had been won. No doubt this will not stop you from bigging up this discredited case into something that it is not.

taffy056

In regrads to insurance, you don't have to be insured to drive the car specifically, because with a lot of policies you can drive another car third party with permission.

murdomaguire

Quoting Ripped Off Driver

That is not actually how the law of trespass works. The damages awarded would be to compensate for the loss of value of the land. Where the trespass is trivial, damages would be nominal. Where a trespass concerns some use of the land without causing damage, as in the case of unauthorised parking, the damages will be measured in relation to the value of the defendant’s use. You would need to work out how much you pay for your parking spot and how much you had paid for the period of unauthorised parking. The end result would be a nominal amount.

You don't know your law.

It was accepted in Scutt v Lomax that diminution in the value of the land was not an appropriate measure of damages in respect of the trespass in that case: Lord Justice Clarke observed that the diminution in value of the land was likely to be minimal but the damage was substantial.

In Bryant v Macklin it was accepted then that general damages were appropriate for loss of amenity and aggravated damages if there was a serious incursion into the claimants' right to the enjoyment of their home; that the defendants were well aware of the effect that their conduct was having in that respect; and that they intended (or, at the least, were indifferent to the fact) that it should have that effect.

If you park in my parking space and I have nowhere else to park then it would be perfectly reasonable to pursue for both loss of amenity (general damages) and aggravated damages.

anewman

buglawton wrote: »

I got my 1st parking ticket parking on a deep church verge at a wedding where there was a real shortage of parking. I arrived as there were about 40 cars already parked on this verge and found a slot. The warning notices were tiny and far from each other. The wardens waited till everyone had parked and gone into the church, then issued all the tickets. It's so easy to get a sense of injustice from theese events, isn't it?

Can you imagine it, everyone talking about the tickets and how annoyed they are instead of how lovely the bride looks and what a lovely couple they make etc etc.

ripped_off_driver

murdomaguire wrote: »

Quoting Ripped Off Driver



You don't know your law.

It was accepted in Scutt v Lomax that diminution in the value of the land was not an appropriate measure of damages in respect of the trespass in that case: Lord Justice Clarke observed that the diminution in value of the land was likely to be minimal but the damage was substantial.

In Bryant v Macklin it was accepted then that general damages were appropriate for loss of amenity and aggravated damages if there was a serious incursion into the claimants' right to the enjoyment of their home; that the defendants were well aware of the effect that their conduct was having in that respect; and that they intended (or, at the least, were indifferent to the fact) that it should have that effect.

If you park in my parking space and I have nowhere else to park then it would be perfectly reasonable to pursue for both loss of amenity (general damages) and aggravated damages.

We could all quote legal precedents out of context. I am afraid that it is you who needs to go an refresher course in trespass law. Scutt v Lomax, which you should know as you have quoted it, is a case involving damage to property. The judge deided the claimant was entitled to either the dimunition in value or the reasonable costs of reasonable reinstatement. There is no damage with unauthorised parking, so the case has absolutely no relevance. The legal position is and has always been that where the trespass is minimal the damages will be nominal.

backfoot

murdomaguire wrote: »

FWIW the reasons I have been a member for two years and never previously posted until now is that I had probably forgotten how poor the site was in the quality of information posted in the forums by people passing off their partial knowledge, theories and half truths.

Furthermore that the mutual backslapping is at such a level that if anyone comes along and challenges any part of the accepted "creed" they face relentless ad hominem attacks of such ferocity that they never want to come back again.

Murdo,

Please answer my previous post as I am really intrigued by your bizarre antics yesterday.

Also,when you purport to be supporting the defence of claims by PPC's, why would you take such umbrage as that above?

Contributors have varying amounts of legal knowledge but it doesn't take rocket science, after a bit of study, to grasp the essential key points especially if it is supported by people like yourself.

You seem to have a style of writing which revels in putting down other forum members, even though we nearly all have the same objective in mind.

Yet after someone's google discovery of you,you now seem gushing with information.

Wouldn't any normal person who was legally informed on PPC's have said up to two years ago. I can help these people. I am still confused about your overall contribution and your motivations and sudden u turn.

murdomaguire

Perky has something on his website about the requirement for drivers to be insured and how this could be used against them in court.... The insurance issue you refer to is nowhere to be found in the genuine transcript of the judgement so you have been misadvised yet again my friend. The forum posting issue is all over the transcript but was removed by Perky in the doctored version he issued to hide the real reason the case had been won. No doubt this will not stop you from bigging up this discredited case into something that it is not.

The Stephen Thomas case was very simple - a very small case really. Mr Thomas said he did not know who was driving. The judge didn't believe him. He had parked there on a number of occasions. The church had asked him not to. No one else was insured to drive the vehicle.

I am not sure who came up wit the theory that Stephen Thomas was a parking company patsy but they probably believe that the Americans never landed on the moon and Lord Lucan kidnapped Shergar.

Taffy wrote:

In regards to insurance, you don't have to be insured to drive the car specifically, because with a lot of policies you can drive another car third party with permission.

To use this as a defence you would probably need to name the other driver who was using your car on their Drive Other Cars benefit. Otherwise unless insurance was in place for other drivers the court would probably believe that on the balance of evidence you were driving it.

murdomaguire

We could all quote legal precedents out of context. I am afraid that it is you who needs to go an refresher course in trespass law. Scutt v Lomax, which you should know as you have quoted it, is a case involving damage to property. The judge deided the claimant was entitled to either the dimunition in value or the reasonable costs of reasonable reinstatement. There is no damage with unauthorised parking, so the case has absolutely no relevance. The legal position is and has always been that where the trespass is minimal the damages will be nominal.

Most case law is cumulative. In Scutt v Lomax Lord Justice Clarke observed that the diminution in value of the land was likely to be minimal but the damage was substantial.

In Bryant v Macklin the judgment went beyond Scutt v Lomax stating that in such cases where diminution of value would not provide appropriate compensation (as per Scutt v Lomax) general damages were appropriate for loss of amenity and aggravated damages would apply if there was a serious incursion into the claimants' right to the enjoyment of their home; that the defendants were well aware of the effect that their conduct was having in that respect; and that they intended (or, at the least, were indifferent to the fact) that it should have that effect.

Parking in someone's private parking space would apply in all the above.

So general damages would apply for the loss of amenity (parking elsewhere) and aggravated damages for the idiot doing it, the hassle caused to the resident and the resident having to sort it out.

More than £12 I would have thought.

ripped_off_driver

murdomaguire wrote: »

The Stephen Thomas case was very simple - a very small case really. Mr Thomas said he did not know who was driving. The judge didn't believe him. He had parked there on a number of occasions. The church had asked him not to. No one else was insured to drive the vehicle.

I am not sure who came up wit the theory that Stephen Thomas was a parking company patsy but they probably believe that the Americans never landed on the moon and Lord Lucan kidnapped Shergar.

Yet again playing down the forum posting that decided the case. Insurance was never even mentioned in the judgement transcript. Of course the forum posting by Perky, the claimant in the case, as "Stephen Thomas" had nothing to do with the case, decided mainly by a forum posting by "Stephen Thomas". Not exactly grassy knoll standard is it?

TBH it was the claim not to know who Perky is that convinced me something was not right. But yet to know aspects of his discredited case that are all positive to the PPC. Anyone active in private parking tickets defence would know of Perky (and have had a good laugh at him on many occasions).